Can Matt Damon solve our refugee policy dilemma?

Andrew Smith considers what a Hollywood film about a space station that becomes home to the globe's elite can teach us about Australia's policy towards asylum seekers.

When you watch the trailer for Neill Blomkamp's new sci-fi action film Elysium it is difficult not to note the parallels to Australia's asylum seeker policy.

The film envisages a not-too-distant future in which the global elite opt to create a safe and prosperous space station, Elysium, away from the dangers of a polluted and overpopulated Earth. Significant resources are invested into preventing unauthorised Earthlings from reaching Elysium.

To watch the film is to witness the lived experience (or Hollywood interpretation) of our policy trajectory from the perspective of the Other.

The bipartisan process of globalisation spurs the increasing flow of capital, goods and especially people across borders. But while the nation state remains the epicentre of sovereignty and democracy, it will always remain at odds with the process of globalisation.

Nation states will only forgo minimal control of their sovereignty for the sake of the nation's economic and security interests.

Meanwhile, national security as a concept and as a practice has quietly expanded well beyond the realms of military and security intelligence. Organised criminals, asylum seekers, 'hacktivists', and now every other nation's citizens are deemed potential threats to national security, worthy of flagging and monitoring.

The NSA leaks reveal the scope and sophisticated analysis of that monitoring. This is ostensibly the process of prosperous nation states ensuring that while the prosperous flows of globalisation (capital, cheap goods, skilled labour) remain open, the unintended flows (disease, transnational crime, unskilled people) are restricted.

We can experience the process ourselves as travellers – our Western passports give us rapid and fairly unfettered access to living and working in other countries while our Asian neighbours remain restricted from such access.

The uncertainty that stems from globalisation has the perverse consequence of encouraging democracies to elect politicians offering certainty through hardline security policies. Elysium is in fact the teased out endpoint of this logic.

As the security services of the Elysium space station shoot down unauthorised ships flying toward the prosperous nation, Australian minds wander to the inevitable militarisation of our own borders: the three-star general in charge of towing, buying or perhaps even one day shooting boats trudging towards Christmas Island.

The more a nation demands certainty amid complexity, the more authoritarian it becomes.

Put simply, the rapid expansion of counter-terrorism laws and funding throughout the West following 9/11 is our reaction against the wild zone's 'asymmetric threat' tactics to gain more recognition, sovereignty and equity.

In this context, we may view the ever-expanding notion of national security as the reinterpretation of anything from the wild zones that requires constant attention lest the integrity and prosperity of the safe zones are breached.

The trajectory looks set from here. Bipartisan support for increasingly authoritarian responses to the 'wild' boat people arriving on our shores sets up an increasing militarisation toward any threats to our relative safety. The prosperous West must violently fight back against the increasing tide of 'bad' globalisation while ensuring the increased capital that flows from outsourcing our waste, unskilled labour and indignity to developing nations.

On that note, we can also see our sprawling mega-cities of Sydney and Melbourne as the externalising of the 'less productive' into the relatively disadvantaged, disconnected outer suburbs. This is the Brave New World.

So what should we do in response to this challenge? Are there any alternatives to this trajectory? Did the Occupy movement provide any real and sustainable alternatives?

At the end of Elysium (spoiler alert!), Earth's citizens are deemed legal citizens of the space station and therefore automatically deserving of advanced medical treatment from the robotic medical specialists.

At once, this strikes me as a utopian vision which lacks a reflection of the difficult consequences that come along with suddenly reassigning everyone in the wild zone as legal citizens of the safe zone.

Healthcare costs would surely soar beyond budgetary capacity. Disease, unemployment and crime would spike as the new citizens of Elysium still found themselves locked out of capital and quality of life the elite had already accrued. Social unrest might spill over to uncontrollable levels.

In this regard, there should be a risk analysis in our conversation about reasonable ceiling levels of Australian refugee and migration intakes, as well as the investment of services and measures required to protect social cohesion.

So what might an ethical and sustainable balance look like? Increasing our humanitarian refugee intake to 20,000 per year hasn't disrupted the social fabric so far. How about 50,000?

The present availability of social services means that we would be better able to achieve similar intakes with less social disruption than we saw during the southern Vietnamese refugee intake of the 70s and 80s. Is this the appropriate response?

A counter-point might be to state that no matter how many refugees or immigrants we allow per year, there will always be more. There will undoubtedly always be 'wild zones' in the developing world beyond our borders.

Besides, Australia is already taking a reasonable proportion of the global intake. And by increasing our intake, we are increasing the risks to Australia's quality of life, sustainability and domestic security.

We may see social cohesion fall as competition for unskilled labour and subsequent crime levels rose. These are arguments I find difficult to reject outright.

So is there any way out?

Perhaps increasing capital flows to the developing world (a là philanthropic business loans) would reduce relative poverty and stave off this increasing gap between the elites and the rest. Perhaps there is a way to legislate a more equitable globalisation.

Because militarising our borders will not stop the flow of people, as America has noted. And electing politicians with ever-increasing hardline policies will not ensure our security or actually remove our uncertainty.

But finding an alternative will require nation states and their democracies to think well beyond one's own borders and recognise that national security is also related to global security; to a shared security.

Above all, our policies must ensure that the so-called wild zones must be treated with increasing, not decreasing, levels of dignity and equity.

Andrew Smith is political researcher who writes about counter-terrorism, national security and its effects on society. View his full profile here.

Comments (191)

Moar Politics:

30 Aug 2013 7:32:24am

You sure your life just doesn't go something like this:

"When you watch <<anything>> it is difficult not to note the parallels to Australia's asylum seeker policy."

I'll give you a tip. While some people relish the prospect of multitudes of illegal boat arrivals as it fuels their desire to live some parasitic fantasy as an "advocate" be it in media, law or street art the majority of people see it as sick.

That majority also feels deeply for genuine would be refugees lost in camps or hanging by their thumbs in some hell hole political prison. Problem is we need to spend all of our resources managing the first issue than tackling the causes of the second. However, I note that doing anything to tackle real causes of refugees is just a little too hard for most "advocates".

So feel free to start the usual replies of "racist" and "xenophobe" which is the only argument of the "advocate". And an argument that must be going wonderfully well as I notice the "advocate" industry is getting about all the attention they deserve this election campaign - none.

the yank:

Moar, what a nonsense comment. The man has outlined a serious situation and you try to mock him instead of offering some real thought on the matter.

Australians seem to me much like Americans in the 50's and 60's, just wanting to be left alone thinking we can sail through major world issues without consequences.

The major issue missing from this present campaign is how each leader would deal with the international scene. That 'black hole' is very real and how we deal with our neighbours will really impact on lives much more then the mining tax, or when the budget will be in surplus.

John:

30 Aug 2013 8:32:28am

Come off it! The Coalition had a proven solution until Rudd dismantled it and flung open the gates.

There's a lot of nonsense talked about the illegal immigrants so let me correct it. They do not fall under the category of legitimate refugees as defined by the UN because they've travelled through other countries to reach here. "Economic refugee" is a term that we could fling at anyone who wants to move somewhere to make more money, but you try doing that without a proper work permit and/or visa in Europe, the US or Canada and see how far it gets you. These illegal immigrants are queue jumping past all of the other people who have applied through proper channels to come to Australia.

the yank:

30 Aug 2013 8:54:20am

You miss the entire point of the article and my comment.

Australia might think that being an island makes it is safe from world affairs but it isn't.

The millions of people looking for a safe place to live is an issue that is just going to grow in importance. An Australia has no idea how we are going to respond instead of just coming up with nonsense comments that if we stop the boats all will be fine. It won't

This country needs to have a serious discussion on how it sees its place in the world and how we are going to deal with its problems. Stopping the boats is not an answer to that question. It is sticking its head in the sand and hoping no one will see it.

Jimmy Necktie:

Peter of Melbourne:

30 Aug 2013 10:35:23am

Why? Because you and your ilk want to wallow in some kind of pathetic self-centred egotistical moral superiority? The problems of these 3rd world societies are ancient and upto them to solve. If they cannot solve their problems then they will deservedly join all of the other failed societies over the course of human history, being a distant memory comprised of a few broken shards of pottery boxed up and placed on a dusty shelf in the basement of a museum somewhere.

Allowing those societies to fail is the best thing that can occur for the people which they comprise of. Why? Because all those ingrained ideals which have caused them to become such failures will hopefully be discarded on the path to a new society which, hopefully, results in something that will benefit its people.

GJA:

Peter of Melbourne:

30 Aug 2013 1:57:42pm

Not my problem, not a hope in hell it should be a problem for my children and neither should it be a problem for their children. Societies fail and have for thousands of years. The only difference now is that they just catch transport around the world shopping for working societies to disrupt.

You want to save the world, do it with your own dime and dont expect people to welcome the dregs of failed societies into our own.

Clare:

30 Aug 2013 7:12:04pm

Are you forgetting that you are the inhabitant of a country that murdered a vast majority of the original dwellers to be able to exist here in the luxury your children will inherit, all based on the lie of Terra Nullius? We are all illegal immigrants in an ethical sense and I for one welcome those who need shelter, support and a safe haven. They all have red blood like me.

I want my child to inherit compassion, multiculturalism, community spirit and a sense of real justice to those who are less fortunate.

I'm an advocate for human rights and I can't abide ignorance and narrow minded 'me' thinking. I think that Australia is already failing as a society, but not in the way you mean. I hope that if we do 'fail', whether it be through drought, disaster, war or an Abbott government that you and your children can find a welcome place of shelter.

Peter of Melbourne:

30 Aug 2013 4:30:17pm

Those failed societies are not of our concern and the refugees from those societies are not our responsibility. That piece of paper signed 60 years ago was designed for a different age is is worthless in the situation we face now and our children will face in the future.

Tracy:

John51:

30 Aug 2013 2:01:49pm

Oh dear, Peter, such a harsh view of the world. But it is also very much an isolationist and distorted view of the world. After all Peter we are not segmented off from what goes on in the rest of the world. So what goes on in the rest of the world also ends up affecting all of us in one way or another.

I am for a start glad that America did not just say we will leave the rest of the world to itself in World War 2. Oh, a lot of them had the same isolationist view of the world and we had our share here in Australia who did not want to get involved. But if we hadn't and if America hadn't than the world would have been a hell of a lot worst now.

But even without that fact we are now part of a global economy and what goes on in the rest of the world affects all of us. The Global Financial Crises (GFC) affects all of us even if some on the coalition side don't want to admit it. The instability and violence in the middle-east affects all of us even if some can't see it.

Maybe you need to look at that statement of yours over wallowing in some kind of pathetic self-centred egotistical moral superiority yourself. Just a suggestion.

Gone to the races:

30 Aug 2013 10:45:53am

Charity begins at home. Here's a solution. A national register of Australians who are willing to billet boat people in their own homes until they're properly processed. Call it "The Rescue a Refugee Register". I doubt many would volunteer to help despite the relentless debate about this issue.

Applaudanum:

30 Aug 2013 12:15:18pm

You'll weed out the 'slacktivists' for a start.

You could then hold those on the register accountable for any mis-deeds performed the those under their care. You could also make those on the register accountable for any mis-deeds felt by those in their care.

Ann:

Gone to the races:

30 Aug 2013 1:47:43pm

@Ann Sorry Ann I'm afraid I have compassion fatigue and I'm residing in Canada these days where all the refugees come through UN processing centres. Why don't you set up the register?. You present as being pretty compassionate. Call it

Steve Mount:

30 Aug 2013 1:29:55pm

GTTR : " Charity begins at home...". Indeed... There are several tens of thousands of homeless people, Australians, in Australia, right now.

Given that these folk are Australians, not foreign refugees, then by your logic and argument, you should be the first to welcome such people in to your 'home'. After all, they are Australians, and live in your 'home'.

Aaah, now I get it, you're quite happy to swap 'Australia' with 'home', as suits your argument.

I'd go as far as to suggest that neither foreign refugees, nor homeless Australians, are welcome in your 'home'.

Craig Thomas:

30 Aug 2013 2:33:46pm

They're not "looking for a safe place to live", they have become aware that bypassing Australia's Migration Act attracts no negative consequences but allows them to latch onto the teat of our generous welfare system.

When Howard offered them TPVs instead of the current incentives to migrate illegally, the flow stopped dead.

Coogera:

30 Aug 2013 7:01:40pm

Yank

Largely agree with you but assisting with the world's refugees means we must control the informal arrivals. There are 43 million refugees who need assistance. Spending large sums on informal arrivals substantially reduces the funds to assist the most needy.

Greyarea:

30 Aug 2013 9:17:25am

How will you tow a boat that is scuttled? Or has the engine taken out of service? Really, how?

This is truly the most bizarre aspect of the appalling policies of almost all concerned. Yes, we can readily accept 50 or 100 thousand refugees a year. Let's do that and spend the money we spend on detention and similar madness on integrating these folk economically and improving our economy.

We have the capacity, we still have more or less the best economy in the world (not that the coalition or those asserting imaginary rises in the cost of living want to hear that), we can well and readily afford this. This is economic rationalism, not bleeding heart leftism.

Fortress Australia has never existed and never will. Better to move on with something decent and sustainable.

SEG:

Anubis:

30 Aug 2013 12:45:05pm

Buying back the boats is only step one in Abbott's plan.He is going to use the purchased boats to set up a Green (or insert whatever colour) Navy to match his Green Army..then he will issue instructions to them to tow the boats back thus releasing the real Navy for the more mundane tasks and saving on overtime.The only trouble I see will be distinguishing the smuggler boats from Abbott's Navy,I think they need a flag,NumbSkull and CrossBones maybe.I believe Abbott is looking into setting up a Green,Grey,Blue or Turquoise Air Force with hang gliders and hot air balloons to turn the planes carrying assylum seekers around.

Applaudanum:

30 Aug 2013 1:17:41pm

I support the boat buy back plan. I'm going to buy up a whole swarm of VW bugs, ship them to Infonesia and sell them to the Aussie government as boats. I'll then buy the 'boats' back cheaply off the government and do the whole thing again!

Tator:

30 Aug 2013 10:08:02am

Easy,you rescue them under the SOLAS protocol and return them to their port of origin or nearest port. The way the people smugglers have been calling for help whilst in Indonesian waters makes that a doddle. Indonesia cannot refuse people who have been rescued in their SAR area of responsibility which actually covers nearly all the way but 12 nautical miles around Christmas Island. Unlike the ALP policy of all rescued people by Australian vessels being delivered to Christmas Island and thus doing the people smugglers job for them, all the Navy needs to do is deliver them back to Indonesia as we have assisted them with their SAR responsibility. All this is covered in the SOLAS protocol.

mack:

30 Aug 2013 10:30:54am

We may well be able to resettle 50 or 100 thousand refugees a year, however the fundamental questions remain: how will they be selected, and what will you do with the first boat load that exceeds the quota?

At the moment we have no effective quota, and people smugglers are driving the selection process of resettlement in Australia.

TK:

30 Aug 2013 1:00:31pm

20,000, 50,000, 100,000, where does it end? The problem is not what the limit is. The problem is that there is a limit. And there's a limit because our resources are finite.

No matter how many we decide to take, there will always be more. What do we do about them? Increasing the limit just defers the problem (perhaps), while at the same time increasing the risk of disruption and dislocation in our society.

For those who say the limit should be increased, I've yet to hear a sensible answer to the question of what happens to the next person to arrive once the limit's been reached.

blax5:

30 Aug 2013 2:31:03pm

I agree with you.

The discussion always ends with a number to 'take in' - but the issues of housing and long-term unemployment benefits are completely ignored.

And then the discussion pretends that it is all up to us, even though t is all governed by the Refugee Convention. Now that Human Rights Watch has set up shop in Australia, the reprimands will be coming fast and furiously. My wish would be to snatch some sovereignty back by ditching the Refugee Convention, but it is verboten to even talk about it, because international rules have been put in place for all and eternity, never to be changed as if they had come from the Mount.

Coogera:

30 Aug 2013 7:10:47pm

blax5:

On the contrary, repudiation of the refugee convention is more than valid since very few countries endorse it. It is largely irrelevant for the 21st century. Repudiating the convention would provide for a more sound basis for strengthening the legality of espatriating informal arrivals.

Yorker:

"How will you tow a boat that ... has the engine taken out of service? Really, how? "

I'm not sure why you think you can't tow a boat without a working engine.

If it is 100000 people what will you do when the 100001st refugee arrives?

I've never heard a good answer to this question, and I would suggest that you if you have one you should post it here.

The suspicion is that you are not advocating for 100K refugees, but for an unlimited number ... which would make you duplicitous. But if you aren't then you should say what you mean -- free entry for all or is there a limited number of people we can take? If so, what is that limit and how will you enforce it? Pretty simple question, but I don't expect an answer.

Peter of Melbourne:

30 Aug 2013 2:11:36pm

"Yes, we can readily accept 50 or 100 thousand refugees a year"

At the expense of our own society and its values. Bugger that! Which means we cannot take in 50,000 or 100,000 people from alien cultures with alien ideals. Multiculturalism has proven to be a failed policy around the world which only creates discord within those societies that implement it.

Elvis:

30 Aug 2013 9:31:56am

John - leaving aside the question of legitimate refugees and your "illegal immigrants" (which I agree are people coming here solely for economic reasons), the simple fact is that the world has changed since that policy was introduced. Globalisation has marched forward at a rapid pace and there have been numerous civil wars and other conflicts (Iraq etc) supported by the Coalition Government that has increased the number of people on the move due to safety reasons.

We need a solution that provides balance but towing back the boats (if you can) isn't it!

Dave:

30 Aug 2013 10:37:40am

Give us a break Elvis, the ALP has also backed the Australian involvement in each war. In fact Rudd has been filmed in parliment stating the WMDs were real and that Australia was morally obliged to go into Iraq.

Elvis:

30 Aug 2013 12:54:39pm

Sure thing, Dave - I won't disagree that Labor support Iraq etc.

But that doesn't alter my original comment that given that the world is now a different place and the higher levels of refugee movements around the world (not just here) mean a simplistic solution to "stopping the boats" won't work.

Absolutely we do need a solution that protects those that are genuine refugees but retains the current migration concepts for those seeking a better "economic" life

SEG:

30 Aug 2013 10:02:40am

The Australian Tea Party (AKA Coalition) did not have a proven solution, it just seems so from a certain simplistic perspective. Global events were and continue to be the drivers behind refugee movements.

Dave from Brisbane:

30 Aug 2013 10:05:55am

Anytime a commentor uses 'illegal immigrants' without irony is like a Godwin for me. It shows you have no intention of debating in good faith. Your time and my time would be better spent if you simply refrained from commenting at all.

nothowardsys:

30 Aug 2013 11:34:20am

What I cannot understand if Australia is the Financial hell hole with ELEVENTY BILLION dollars of accumulating debt that will see us turn into Greece next week unless the world Biggest Carbon Tax turns us all into tree hugging tofu eating gay loving 1950s hating commo Muslim trade unionist pink bat installing hippies does so earlier, why would anyone want to come here?

Zing:

30 Aug 2013 12:11:18pm

Actually, this whole debate is a waste of time.

The problem has arisen because a small minority of people insist on compromising our borders for the sake of whatever religious or socialist ideology floats their boat. As a result, we ended up with a policy that ensured that boat people will succeed in their applications and obtain citizenship irrespective of whether it is deserved.

It would be easier to simply ignore the pro-boat lobby and change the policy. The main parties are slowly starting to realise this. Not a second too soon, IMHO. God knows, we'll never solve this problem by listening to the Greens.

MK:

during this "proven solution"Feel free to correct me, As already pointed out, towing the boats only works untill they start scuttling their boats,

the "pacific solution" had a capacity of only 2000,the number of a tttmps alread had a long upward trend long before labor came it,It was just fortunate for the liberals that this wasnt exposed before they lost government

Also the inconvenient court ruling that has since declared the pacific solution was illegal,Not saying i agree with it, but under our court legal systemIt's called the law.

So this illegal system that had already started to stop workingis the magical proven soltion

It was at best a bluff/magic trick/successful illusion,all about perception both with the voters and with the refugees,The people smugglers and refugees have already seen through it

dh:

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 11:50:36am

@John - there is indeed a lot of nonsense talked about "illegal immigrants," and some of it comes from you.

It is simply not true to state that asylum seekers who arrive here by irregular means "do not fall under the category of legitimate refugees as defined by the UN because they've travelled through other countries to reach here." There is absolutely nothing in the UN Convention or Protocol which limits refugee status in this matter. If a person has a legitimate fear of persecution, and has not obtained protection in another signatory country, then he has every right to make an asylum claim in Australia no matter how many non-signatory countries he's travelled through en route. That is a flat out fact.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 5:08:29pm

@KK - as a matter of fact, the Convention says nothing of the kind. It says that if you have a well founded fear of persecution, you are entitled to protection. The only exceptions are people who already have protection from a signatory country, and people who've committed war crimes.

The section so often quoted says basically that you shouldn't be penalised for illegal migration if you arrive directly. So, in theory, an Afghan who arrives via Indonesia has violated that section and could be gaoled or fined for arriving illegally - but when he got out, he'd still be entitled to claim refugee status.

Why do you think that countries like France and Canada accept refugee claims from Sri Lankans and Afghans who definitely did not arrive direct? Because they're obliged to do so under the Convention.

KK:

30 Aug 2013 6:04:09pm

Article 31 of the Convention states '...having come directly...', that means not having passed through other safe countries. That section was designed to protect those who applied for protection in the first safe country they came to, even if it was illegally. It was not designed to allow country shoppers to by bypass safe places to get to a desired destination.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 7:24:01pm

@KK - why don't you read the whole of art 31. It says people who arrive directly shouldn't be penalised. It says absolutely nothing about people who arrive by circumlocutous routes. So, you can punish such people but it doesn't mean they're not refugees.

Now, go back to art 1, which is the foundation of the Convention, and see who is disqualified from making a refugee claim. You will not see any mention whatsoever of people who've transited non-signatory countries. That's because such people are not disqualified from making claims. You can transit a dozen countries, and you still have a right to protection under the Convention. And yes sir, that is a fact.

John51:

30 Aug 2013 1:49:46pm

Come on John, as the Yank says you have missed the whole point of the authors? argument. I saw the movie and I saw the comparisons of not just the asylum debate here in Australia. You can see it in the asylum debate right around the whole world.

It is not just the asylum debate either. You see the whole analogy of the relationship of the developed world to the developing world. Just as you can see the analogy between the haves and have not's within the developed world. And boy is it a reflection of the so called great American dream.

Not only are the poor in America seeing that American dream disappear up in smoke. More and more of the so called middle-class are seeing that American dream disappear up in smoke.

But it is even much more than that it the way big corporations operate in their world. If small business and consumers in this country think big corporations screw them, than they should see what it is like for people in the developing world.

Oh and we get many of our cheap goods in this country as our manufacturing goes overseas from them being screwed by big corporations. So we are not free of that association, but I suppose people don't want to hear that.

So if you go and see that movie you will see all of that reflected in the story of that science fiction movie. It may seem far fetched and off in the future, but for many people in this world it reflects their lives now. And that includes those who have access to life saving medicine and health care and those who don't. If you go to America there are plenty of people in that so called developed country who don't have access to that life saving health care.

Trev:

30 Aug 2013 11:39:43am

The yank, what a nonsense comment. Who gave you the divine right to classify someone else's views as "nonsense." Is it because it doesn't agree with your views? The continual drivel you spout as though you are a gifted commentator really grates. Maybe it would do you the world of good to actually look at another's comments before you immediately respond with the usual lefty snot.

The' real cause' of families I know, seeking refuge: empowered local thugs, who turn up, do home invasions, shoot a kid in front of its parents. And say to the parents, take that as a warning, if you cross us again... . The family are unarmed, just farmers.

That's Afghanistan, but it's the same tactic they used in Ulster, during the civil war of the 1970s.

Put yourself in their shoes, Moar. The mum's shoes.

You would flee for your life, with your kids.

And if you agree you'd flee - that means, you're kinda hoping, at the back of your mind, someone will let you stay somewhere else.

Just to repeat, Moar... looks like you don't really know these people... perhaps time you got out and met some?

Rusty:

dh:

30 Aug 2013 11:50:20am

Its called hypothosis testing, criterion predictor theory or threshold theory, used in almost every aspect of science and it's indicated by language like "false negatives" and "false positive". Worth looking up if you care to.

Mike of Ulster:

If you were an empowered local thug - why would you travel to Australia, l -- when right where you live, there is plenty of stuff to steal, and it's like taking candy from kids?

OK assuming some do try to get in - DIAC ask arrivals or applicants, for character, criminal activity, identity etc then check it out independently. If the two don't match - no visa.

Also we already have plenty of our own thugs, home grown We have useful civil institutions like police, law, to deal with our own. One of the risks if you try to help people, sooner or later you get taken advantage of. Just ask anyone who volunteers at the op shop, even if - But they still think it is worthwhile, to work at the op shop..

mike:

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 7:27:44pm

@Mike - DIAC has absolutely no capacity to check the histories of undocumented arrivals, whether they're legitimate refugees or thugs. DIAC has no idea who these people are, and for most of the source countries, no way of checking any criminal history even if they could identify who they're dealing with.

The idea that refugee visas will be refused on the basis that someone was a less than admirable citizen in their home country is simply "pie in the sky." It's not reality.

antipostmodernism:

30 Aug 2013 9:22:27am

No one who comes all the way here is fleeing for their lives. I would like to live in Vaucluse Sydney, but I don't just break in by faking an accident because I want more stuff, demand money, arrange to have my extended family also break in, and then sue the owners for lacking tolerance and compassion, and not catering to my cultural and religious norms.

Mike of Ulster:

Tossle:

30 Aug 2013 10:14:21am

Mike,

That scenario does sound like a genuine refugee and Im sure the mother and children would be waiting in a refugee camp not jumping on a plane with passports and $20,000 for people smugglers and flying half way around the world passing through how many safe countries?

Mike of Ulster:

30 Aug 2013 12:01:29pm

The family while waiting in another country , got split up - the second country police occasionally did a round up of people and deported them & this is what happened to the parents, leaving teenagers and kids to fend for themselves.

One went off on his own, and turned up to their surprise in Australis... He established himself here, house, got work, then applied to bring the others in, and they got humanitarian visas.

So is not as simple as people waiting in camps.... some countries, don't have camps and queues.

Magpie:

That?s ?safe? to you? What?s surprising to me is how *few* people try for places like Australia.

Look again at that child mortality rate: for every 5 kids whose parents we actually convince to stay in the camps, one of those little kids dies. They die because we spent hundreds of millions of dollars to stop their parents doing something entirely legal: coming to Australia to ask for asylum.

Set up a processing office in Jakarta. Limit it to our usual feed-in countries (Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Iran and Iraq). There is no evidence to show it would make the slightest difference to the numbers we get in the long term (our share of asylum seekers hasn?t changed significantly in 30 years ? our numbers ebb and flow exactly in line with the whole hemisphere). It would cost a fraction of what we spend now. And we?d never see another boat again.

?but it would mean that we wouldn?t get that sweet rush of being cruel to people we have power over, would it?

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 7:32:01pm

I'm sorry, but do you have any idea how many people are waiting in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia for an opportunity to get to Australia? Several hundred thousand. And many of them are not in fact Convention refugees. So, when DIAC refuses say, two thirds, as regularly happens in the African camps, what do you think those two-thirds are likely to do? That's right: get on a boat.

Anyway, why should we take Iranians, Sri Lankans and Iraqis, when none of these are r traditional "feed in" countries. The movements out of these places to Australia is a product of pull factors, not of traditional refugee escape patterns.

mack:

30 Aug 2013 10:37:12am

The situation that you've described, Mike, is a law-and-order issue which impacts most of the third world. In itself, it does not qualify the victims for "protection", as defined by Article 1 of the Refugee Convention. It's just the way the third world is.

And of course it begs the questions that you will never, ever, answer: how many such people should we resettle; how should they be selected; and what will we do with the first boat load that exceeds the quota?

I'm the first person to agree that we have the capability to resettle more refugees. Unlike yourself, however, I argue that people smugglers should play no part in this process.

Mike of Ulster:

30 Aug 2013 12:09:22pm

How many such people should we resettle? As many as we feel we, as a society, have room for.

How should they be selected? They self-select, by turning up here or in refugee camps. Dept of Immigration has a thorough screening program for e.g disease, genuine cases of fear for life; character, criminal record, etc. Nearly all pass.

What do we do with the first boat load that exceeds the quota? Probably the same as hospital A&E departments do when too many ambulances arrive at once ie they manage by other ways, not by fixing quotas.

reaver:

30 Aug 2013 4:15:54pm

And as usual with all asylum seeker advocates Mike refuses to give an actual number and later on states that no quotas should even be considered. Quite revealing. As an aside when too many ambulances arrive at once at a hospital emergency room the ambulances with the least urgent cases are regularly diverted to other hospitals close by. In your analogy that would be Rudd sending asylum seekers to PNG. The reason that most of those who come here get classified as refugees is because after the Rudd government removed the Pacific Solution in 2008 the number of IMAs skyrocketed and public concern rose as well. In order to deal with public concern the government stacked the Refugee Review Tribunal with asylum seeker activists and expanded the "complementary protection" system so that almost all asylum seekers got classified as refugees. The government thought that if all asylum seekers got classified as refugees the issue of their arrival would go away. Clearly it didn't.

KK:

30 Aug 2013 4:52:18pm

When hospitals are overloaded the staff select the most urgent cases and the rest have to wait. Problem with the boat people is they don't want to wait and hire criminals to push their way past the most urgent cases.

The Dept of Immigration does have a thorough screening process. Problem is the Refugee Review Tribunal and the High Court, both stacked with rubber stamping activists, override any negative decisions.

Concerning Asylum Seekers:

30 Aug 2013 6:59:44pm

"When hospitals are overloaded the staff select the most urgent cases and the rest have to wait. Problem with the boat people is they don't want to wait and hire criminals to push their way past the most urgent cases."

Hmmm...as an emergency worker I've seen that in action; people do it. I remember a code blue on a non-breathing child, and there was another parent who had a child with a sore foot and saw that they were going to have to wait now, and complained about it - sheeesh - made it hard to be polite.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 7:33:58pm

@Mike- DIAC does not have a thorough screening process. It can check for disease; it has no way of checking effectively for criminality, security risks, and, since it can't actually identify who it's dealing with, it certainly cannot make a reasoned assessment as to whether there is a genuine fear of persecution.

Ann:

30 Aug 2013 1:23:43pm

And that, mack is entirely the point of the article. If the third world is "just like that" and makes the people in it want to get out and come to our country, we have a *selfish* interest in improving their home country situation, whether through increased aid or pressuring their government. It's exactly what he's saying: If we don't want to take in refugees, we need to try and stop people even wanting to be refugees.

dogeatdog:

maybe I'm getting a little bit off topic, but I do wonder why some nations seem prone to spawning groups of "empowered local thugs"? Who gave the "thugs" the power in the first place?

More to the point, if the local people feel their only way to escape from the "empowered thugs" is to flee to another country, does the country that has to bear the cost of accommodating those refugees have a right to demand that the refugees' homeland government take action to supress the "empowered thugs" that are causing the refugee movement in the first place.

And, if the home government can not or will not supress the "empowered thugs" does the country that is having to play host to the refugees then have a right take some direct military action of its own against the "empowered thugs"?

Jimmy Necktie:

30 Aug 2013 5:16:14pm

Though I'm not a fan of the UN in it's present form, I think any military intervention would have to be sanctioned in some way, at least by the other counries of the region. Otherwise you would end up with a big mess of small conflicts which could escalate. Also some would use intervention as an excuse to invade for other reasons etc.

But most importantly it musn't be seen as one nation against another where the rest of the world is forced to take sides, but rather an entire region against the offending nation.

The problem is getting the regions to agree. But the more nations involved, the less likely a rivalry between any two nations will cause a stalemate. And none of this veto nonsense.

Bah, humbug:

30 Aug 2013 10:18:47am

Ever notice that a large number, perhaps most, of the refugees wanting to get into Oz are from places where we participated in starting wars? Iraq, Afghanistan, previously Vietnam? Gee, perhaps there's a lesson there, for any who are prepared to see it. Next time, maybe we should think twice before jumping on the bandwagon of the "world's policeman"... No, I don't think your comment is necessarily racist or xenophobic, Moar. Callous? Maybe.

dogeatdog:

Bah, humbug:

30 Aug 2013 5:05:32pm

True, but they couldn't have sought refuge in the Soviet Union, could they? The Soviets would have simply shot them at the border. I'm not sure the Russians would act differently today, considering their continuing barbarity in Chechnya. My point stands, my friend.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 7:36:30pm

No, your point doesn't stand. 5 million Afghans went home after we and the rest of the allies marched into Afghanistan. The Afghans fled the Soviets, then they fled the Taliban, and no doubt they'll flee the Taliban in the future. They're not fleeing us.

Jimmy Necktie:

30 Aug 2013 5:27:36pm

Actually the USSR resisted sending in troops for a long time though the Afghans pleaded for them to. They had seen what happened to the US in Vietnam and the war was not popular at home, though they managed to keep a lot of it from the public. Some in the Politburo also feared the Afghans would turn to the US for help instead, and Russia saw placing it's troops there as the lesser evil, rather than having US troops there. There was no enthusiasm for that war and the troops were all but abandoned - taking up space to keep the Americans out.

dh:

P.S.C.:

30 Aug 2013 2:29:44pm

Moar Politics - I agree entirely with your insights. Our 'advocates' (read: fat cats) are rich people who live in fine houses, have a car, and who have undertaken to defend the right of 30 million people to enter Australia without a thought for our more than 100.000 homeless people sleeping in the open. It was bitterly cold last night and what did those 'advocates' do for these hapless people already present in Oz?

What about the human rights of these unfortunate ones? There are homeless people in a suburb not all that far from mine, who live in the park and have to ask people in houses nearby for drinking water. No school for their children! Ow gawd.

As for labels such as 'racism' or being 'xenophobic' - you can always tell that those who rely on these words to portray you, you and me, are hell-bent on winning the argument without any regard for Australians in deep despair.

john:

Dingo:

30 Aug 2013 8:14:37am

This is utter rubbish.

The current system is run by criminals and involves the key criteria to get entry to Australia as money not humanity issues, wastes $billions on a handful of queue jumpers who steal from those less fortunate.

Fortunately, only the Greens, Tinker Bell and her trusty band of fairies and pixies support criminals.

mike:

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 7:38:01pm

Those Vietnamese were selected out of refugee camps. We made the decisions: smugglers didn't. There were very few actual Vietnamese boat people (around 2000) compared to the camp people we went in and processed (around 90,000).

antipostmodernism:

30 Aug 2013 8:16:31am

but why should we be responsible for the 'wild zones'? Other cultures and religions make choices that cause conflict and underdevelopment. We can provide foreign aid, help through trade, and encourage democracy, but we can't really change their thoughts and habits. Importing troubled people here does nothing to improve the wild zones, is costly, and results in a less cohesive Australia with people bringing the attitudes that are the very cause of wild zone dysfunction. They should fight to change their own societies.

dh:

30 Aug 2013 12:01:24pm

Finally antipostmodern you're saying something worth listening to. We are not resposible for the wild zones (colonialism aside). Yes we can't help the entire world, but maybe we could do more.Suggest you look up "tied aid" to get a picture of how aid is often just economic stimulus for the donor country. Or maybe "transfer pricing" to see how globalisation is destroying the taxation base of most countries, eroding their capacity to work properly.The low hanging fruit of economic growth and also the enemy of corruption is education. Now when the cruelty factor of the next pacific solution reduces refugees to a trickle, will the government of the day spend any more money on education aid?Probably not, and so the problem will continue because we have not looked at the underlying problems. We'll just tune out, as population increases, wealth inequaltiy grows and all this on a planet that is finite. Nah! Nothing bad could come of that now could it. We'll be alright mate... (grim smile of doubt).

Leafygreens:

30 Aug 2013 8:25:25am

What does treating the wild zones with dignity and equity look like? We have restated the challenges endlessly but we have no real version of the solution.

Nevertheless a useful new take on fortress oz :-). A bit like the storyline in the original judge dread comics (not the movies) with the advent of highly populated mega cities within domes surrounded by lawless badlands. Yay 80s Brit comix as social commentary.

John:

30 Aug 2013 8:26:01am

This is gotta be the longest bow I've seen drawn in a long time.

But let's continue the theme- What can "Dumb and Dumber" teach us about the Labor government of the last six years?- What can Monty Python teach us about Kevin Rudd?- What can Murder on the Orient Express teach us about how Labor deals with its leaders?

David:

dh:

30 Aug 2013 12:22:37pm

Creativity has always led the way and pattern seeking is a useful adaptation of consciouness.But to be fair some recent research in neurology shows how metaphors will internally activate a sort of internal simulation (usually sensory areas and right hemisphere), as it tries out the pattern of understanding on the neural networks, sort of like a beta test on programming code before being moved into production. When an area is damaged (Broca's or Wernike's area with regard langauge) then the ability to comprehend metaphor may be compromised.Shooting the messanger never helps.The creative arts have always led the way... and there is a very good reason for this.

Coogera:

30 Aug 2013 7:30:57pm

John:

On the contrary there are interesting parallels between current migration patterns and the movie. Its unfortunate neither the ALP or the NLP seem up to the task of addressing the demand to migrate to Australia with its wonderful medical services. Instead both parties are trying to outdo each other in bizarre schemes. Tony however wins the Mad Max award with his buy back the boats scheme.

Dave:

30 Aug 2013 8:28:22am

Australians seem to me much like Americans in the 50's and 60's, just wanting to be left alone thinking we can sail through major world issues without consequences.

What absolute rubbish. Most Australians have no issue with genuine refugees that we select. The issue has always been about economic opportunists (as even pointed out by Labor) that think they have the right to illegally enter our country and demand acceptance.

antipostmodernism:

We have never even tried; instead we use the military to bring them in from international waters from fake rescues. Unlike America, we are an island that should make it easier.

Unfortunately, there are people who have been resettled in this country, allegedly to escape war and persecution, that have raised Australian children that are now fighting in the moronic Syrian civil war. Australia should not be aiding the creation of generations of Australian born trained, battle hardened, jihadists. This is a security disaster for Australia.

pipes:

Dove:

Elvis:

30 Aug 2013 9:41:42am

Just so I'm clear on what you are ultimately proposing. A boat of unknown origin comes into Australian waters; do we a) fire on the boat and sink it if necessary, b) tow the boat back to international waters (if it's not sabotaged first), c) if the boat does sink we leave the passengers to drown d) summarily arrest and deport all those on board regardless of their claims/situation e) all of the above?

Or do we accept our responsibilities as signatories to the Refugee convention and as a global citizen

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 10:21:37am

@Elvis: how about (e) detain all the passengers until they've had a chance to make an asylum claim, and rapidly deport those who either don't make a claim, or have a manifestly unfounded one, or who are ineligible by virtue of ties to organisations involved in crimes against humanity (ie LTTE cadres). Oh, and seize the boat, arrest those in Australia who were complicit in its voyage, and pursue international warrants against the offshore organisers.

Elvis:

30 Aug 2013 12:58:49pm

Yep, frangipani - that's reasonable but under both Governments people are detained for years before anything happens. That's where part of the problem lies. If they are genuine refugees release them into the community, if not, send them home and without delay

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 7:40:29pm

@Elvis - the Kiwis do a kind of risk management (as do most other countries, I believe) - if the person isn't an obvious risk, release them into the community. I agree with that. What I don't agree with is the length of time to make a decision, and the access to appeals for every dubious claim to persecution, drawing out the process interminably.

antipostmodernism:

30 Aug 2013 10:22:01am

1) We do not respond to distress calls from boats obviously containing asylum seekers outside Australian waters.

2) We tow the boats back, and if they decide to harm themselves this is none of our business. I would not get what I want from the government by threatening self harm, and I am actually an Australian citizen. Passive-aggressive is the new form of invasion and should be treated as such by people who travelled a long way to come here only for economic enrichment.

3) If they do manage to get to x'mas Island or similar, deport them, or lock them all up until they agree to leave.

4) There is no global citizenry. The convention is outdated and did not consider 'gaming', or limits in terms of numbers.

5) Rational self interest is a valid reason for 1-4. There are real issues about cost, integration, security, and fairness. We have a orderly humanitarian program.

Elvis:

30 Aug 2013 1:08:30pm

Thanks apm, I gathered that's what you meant. Sadly, it reflects that great Aussie tradition of "bugger you Jack, I'm alright" rather than the concept of helping those genuinely in need. And I do mean genuinely in need, mike

antipostmodernism:

30 Aug 2013 2:19:21pm

The world is full of people who want to live in Western countries for a better life and we can't take in many. There is nothing special about people who come here on boats compared to other hard luck stories, and it is pretty much impossible to verify their stories. At least we know that asylum seekers in transit in places like Indonesia and Malaysia have already escaped the alleged persecution so have already achieved 'refuge' in its most important definition. Anything more is about economic improvement, which does not qualify under the convention. Therefore the only argument should be about how many we resettle in the humanitarian program. The Refugee convention is impractical sentimental nonsense.

Concerning Asylum Seekers:

30 Aug 2013 10:42:10am

"We have never even tried"We have actually, and it worked. We towed the boats back, because they were Indonesian boats with Indonesian crews, not Afgan boats or Iranian boats. Indonesia simply asked that we didn't make a big fuss about it, and we didn't, but it plainly worked - see Alexander Downer's interview about it - he didn't even tell John Howard that he was going to do it. As the minister he considered basic border protection simply to be his job.

Terry:

Considering that the film was made to emulate the "refugee" situation (though it more correctly portrays the economic migrant situation) it would be amazing if parallels were not obvious.

At least the author identifies the "feel good" ending as being a fantasy, simply not possible to maintain.

He posits two possible solutions: sending money and legislation.

Without wishing to be too critical, these are the solutions regularly wheeled out to solve every problem from Aboriginal death rates to AGW. While they have their place, in practical terms they don't work. They are a sop, a pretence that we are doing something. A bit like apologising to everyone for faults, real or imagined, rather than making hard decisions.

Genuine refugees flee persecution. Sending money (to buy protection?) seems pointless, and what legislation would convince a dictatorship or theocracy to respect its own citizens? Only legislation backed by the definite use of force to comply would be effective, and recent history shows that the population of the West has been led to believe that the use of force is always wrong.

Economic migrants seek a better (ie more affluent) life elsewhere. While money is theoretically a solution, how much would be needed? More than could possibly be provided I suspect. The solution is to improve productivity (no, not by lowering wages, but by developing a work ethic), which would usually mean the removal of corrupt or anti-development governments. Again, the West has been told that "regime change" is always wrong.

Examples of both these solutions abound. Post war Germany no longer persecuted Jews, a pro-development South Korea changed itself from a poor agrarian society to an industrial powerhouse with one of the world's highest standards of living.

So we could try to fix the problem, but we choose not to. Those who take the moral high ground are condemning the bulk of the world's population to misery and creating the problem of illegal immigration.

Sometimes, however, the moral thing to do is to intervene. If your neighbour is starving his or her children, is it enough to give them scraps of food? To point out that there is a legal obligation to provide for the children? Or to use the police and social security forces to forcibly fix the problem? Simplistic, yes. But the argument is sound.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 10:25:40am

Actually, providing your neighbour with food is not necessarily the right solution, because it destroys the value of the local farmers' produce and simply creates more poverty. The better solution is allowing those local farmers and manufacturers to earn income by opening up our markets to their products. That, of course, includes recognising that by allowing offshore manufacturers to export to us, we're going to end up losing jobs here in Australia. That's tough on our working class, but it is ultimately the only way the developing world will in fact develop.

Frank of NQ:

30 Aug 2013 8:44:31am

"So what might an ethical and sustainable balance look like? Increasing our humanitarian refugee intake to 20,000 per year hasn't disrupted the social fabric so far. How about 50,000? " I recall this government's response to that question. "We can't afford it."

Elvis:

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 10:26:49am

Like it or not, there can be no actual "quota" for refugees. We can set a target for the number of offshore cases we will resettle out of the camp, but we cannot impose any limit on the number of asylum seekers we might be obligated to accept. That's the reality.

Coogera:

30 Aug 2013 9:05:48am

A good balanced article which essentially throws up the three areas in which Australia can provide a meaningful role, namely: foreign aid to assist development of the economies of these developing countries; funding of the UNHCR to manage refugee camps; and, permanent resettlement of refugees who have no hope of repatriation. The issue is trying to find the right balance and ensuring that we are giving as much as is possible.

Our biggest obstacle to providing for refugees are informal arrivals because of the large funds required to process then all of which are diverted from our refugee effort. It would be easy to simply give up and give them all entry but of course the trickle would then become a flood that would seriously constrain resources. Perhaps Italy provides an example whereby informal arrivals are given support during the processing period of six weeks but are then left to their own resources. For us this would mean no access to tertiary education, health and other Centrelink payments. By denying these benefits, we would be able to handle much larger numbers of informal arrivals and use the funds saved for the major refugee effort.

pilotyoda:

Wrong. By denying migrants (refugees or otherwise) any supportmor education, you will effectively create an underclass of those in poverty. This would be a disaster for social cohesion.

Stop paying foreign companies $billions to do our dirty work and do the job properly. the savings would adequately cover the additional cost of doing the right thing by these people.

Even better: create a "refugee" 7-day return visa that can only be obtained at certain airports around the world, including Indonesia. Potential refugees could get one at the airport, purchase a plane ticket (Note: only hundreds of dollars, not thousands or tens of thousands). This has at least 4 main benefits:a) Puts the people smugglers out of work immediately.b) Safe travel, no drownings and we would know in advance how many are due to arrive.c) Huge savings in border protection costs.d) Those rejected could be put on a plane back to whence they came, also at a cost of only $hundreds per person.

Set up a local processing point near each airport. Do the bulk of the work in 30 days and then move people either back to their embarkation point, to a full processing centre for further assessment, or release into the community till final processing complete.

The total savings all round will far outweigh the paltry cost of sending some back. We also won't be paying billions to foreign security companies. Win-Win for all.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 2:12:27pm

I don't think you have thought through your ideas about a seven-day visa. For one thing, there is no chance that, once on Australian soil, the thousands who have availed themselves of this visa will leave within seven days or thirty days or any similar time frame.

They will have access to tribunals and courts if their cases are refused, and will be able to avail themselves of legal aid and no doubt Centerlink benefits in the interim. Their chances of being refused are low. So if they come, they'll stay. In effect, we'll have abandoned our visa system.

And they cannot be returned to Indonesia or Malaysia unless they happen to be Indonesian or Malaysian. It's no easy matter returning someone to Iran.

Furthermore, you will not put the smugglers out of work. Those who organise boat trips are only one element of the smuggling rackets. Those who organise phoney passports and fake documents as "evidence" of persecution are another aspect of the smuggling trade, and one which is much in evidence for those trying to access Europe and North America. They'll do very well out of your suggestion.

We will undoubtedly save lives, but it will be at the expense of totally undermining both the refugee program and the immigration program itself. There will be no room for skilled migrants of family class, when anyone can simply buy a one way ticket to Australia, regardless of skills, family ties or a legitimate refugee claim.

Veganpuncher:

30 Aug 2013 9:31:01am

No, no, a thousand times no. Importing useless, traumatised, ethnically heterogeneous illegal immigrants (by the time they reach Australia they are most assuredly not refugees according to international law) is bad for our society.

The world is not fair, we cannot make it fair and it is not our job to do so just because some UN-appointed busybody says it is. We have been blessed with a prosperous, ethnically and culturally homogenous society, let us enjoy it and leave white, middle-class guilt to the Greens and single-issue 'advocates'.

dh:

30 Aug 2013 12:31:59pm

I learnt the other day that one of my ancestors was on the first fleet.Guess what, I am a boat person.So are you.Infact we all are if your time span is long enough.The prosperity we experience is because of immigration, not in spite of it, and if I choose compassion instead of short sightedness then so be it.

Concerning Asylum Seekers:

30 Aug 2013 7:29:05pm

"Guess what, I am a boat person."You are the descendant of a people who ruled the seas of the world, and then also this land. They sailed at will for over ten thousand nautical miles at a time, and around Cape Horn for a return trip with wool, with discipline and purpose - needless to say, no GPS or phoning ahead in fear of 200nm. Many people have been saying and comparing that we are 'boat people' too - I don't think so, certainly not in a comparable way.

Ataraxia:

30 Aug 2013 9:46:41am

Traditionally, most people have not wanted to leave their homes and extended families to travel to a foreign land. The 'West' now seems to be being asked to pay the price for enculturating the world with its materialist and individualist ethos. Now many are going further in the name of 'progress' by deliberately mocking and deriding the religious cement that has helped bind traditional societies .

We should support the notion of plurality and not insist that the only valid way of being is on the boring, selfish, 'scientifically advanced' fields of Elysium. Perhaps not invading other countries using the rationale, "we don't do it here so they shouldn't do it there and we will kill a bunch of them to show them" might be a start.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 10:40:41am

If it were true that most people have not wanted to leave their homes and families, humanity would still be living entirely in Africa. Humans have always been migrants, looking for better opportunities elsewhere.

With migration comes change. Religion, clan and tribal values, will all be challenged. And there is nothing at all wrong with that. I see no reason why the west should be embarrassed about its fundamental views on human rights, the rule of law and democratic values, nor about its basis in secular governance. Those who choose to have other values can also choose to remain in places where those values still hold. Those who choose to come here should do so on the understanding that they cannot simply ignore the values of the society in which they find themselves.

As for not invading other countries, well, that's hardly something unique to the west, now is it? Whether its Iraqis invading Kuwait, or Russians invading Georgia, or assorted African nations getting involved in Congo, or miscellaneous Arabs fighting in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, western countries are hardly unique. And if you want a very good example of "we don't do it here so they shouldn't do it there and we will kill a bunch of them to show them," look no further than the Taliban.

Ataraxia:

30 Aug 2013 12:44:24pm

I think you misunderstand my point. There is nothing wrong with the West having values and even different sections of the "West" having different values - viva la difference. Having been forced from my own country because of the actions of an invader (not by economic forces), I am well aware of the cultural changes those who come here are required to make. I am advocating, not the values of the Taliban - a group about which I don't pretend much knowledge even though I have spent hours in discussion with many Afghanis - but pluralism rather than the insistence of a monoculture spread through intellectual and cultural imperialism: the cultivation of an ability to tolerate even those groups with whom we disagree and who may display intolerance towards us. If we, sunbathing in the Elysium Fields, cannot learn to abide the world-views others but demand they adopt ours, then it will take more than a Matt Damon to save us.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 2:15:26pm

Well, first, I don't see the west as a monoculture. The Taliban represent a monoculture; we don't. We are far more tolerant of other ideas, of dissent, than are the societies from which many asylum seekers hail. So to me, your model is upside down.

And I can tell you from personal experience that the last things groups like the Taliban want is pluralism.

mike:

30 Aug 2013 11:19:28am

It is easy to ridicule ridiculous beliefs (winged horses, talking snakes, etc.), and condemnation of such beliefs is warranted if those beliefs drive people to oppress others whether the victims are gays, Jews, Hindus, blasphemers, apostates, or women who dare try to be independent.

Ataraxia:

30 Aug 2013 1:59:57pm

Yes, it is as easy as ridiculing the childish hermeneutics of those who insist on literal interpretations within their frame of reference. One would think that the later Wittgenstein had never existed.

mike:

Victor :

30 Aug 2013 9:50:46am

Andrew Smith refers to the 'trailer' for Elysium, but has he seen the film?

One of the least enjoyable movies I have seen which starred Matt Damon, the first thing that struck me was the similarity to the way the world works now....the main difference being the logistical separation between the haves and the havenots.

The connection made by Andrew to the assylum seeker situation didn't even gel, but the way the great unwashed lived in the movie was very similar to the conditions I have seen being experienced by many Asians....while the well off live in some gated compound.

If the people who ruled the world had such power why didn't they just exterminate the people who were 'polluting' the place, clean it up and then just move back?

In the same way that people of different educational and vocational standards don't often choose each other's company, then people with widely varying cultural values often see the value in not trying to change things.

Cultural differences are not some 'fiddly little thing' that can be overcome with a bit of fine tuning, and who wants to be the guinea pigs for what Mao Tse Tung called 'the manure of history'.

Coogera:

30 Aug 2013 10:33:30am

Victor:

Of course if there is a sequel, Elysium with lots of refugees moving in will resemble the earth they fled from. This will mean the well to do will have to escape and form a new colony on earth which of course will become the beautiful place the inhabitants of Elysium now want to flee to.

Hubert:

Although the parallel you draw is appropriate, the asylum seeker issue is not a key issue affecting our nation, but more a political football to be used to win (or keep) government.

I was just musing about how terminology has been twisted in this respect. How did asylum seekers become "boat people"? I guess most people are less likely to empathise with asylum seekers than boat people?

mack:

whogoesthere:

30 Aug 2013 11:42:11am

'Boat people' are a sub-group of 'asylum seekers'. They are people with enough money to get to Indonesia, then pay someone to get on a boat to get here and seek asylum. They may, or may noy not, turn out to be genuine refugees.

As people constantly point out there are millions of other refugees around the world, most of these do not have the option of becoming a boat person.

Even if all our 'boat people' are genuine refugees, there are still many more who would love to come to Australia, but don't have a hope in hell of doing so.

That is why there is a difference between 'boat people' advocates, and 'refugee' advocates. We seem to have plenty of the former, who make alot of noise. We don't seem to have any who speak up for those stuck in Camps. Something I have always found very puzzling.

I agree it has become a political football, in should never be one. But, by the constant emotive nonsense from 'boat people' advocates - we're all racist, red-neck, heartless, xenophobes, they have contributed to the politicisation of the issue as much as anyone.

JoeBloggs:

30 Aug 2013 10:26:03am

The Elysium concept is the future of our species.

When we do colonise our solar system there will be many Elysiums.

Whether or not the 3rd and 2nd world is prepared to grow up and participate will determine whether or not they share in the benefits of colonisation, or whether they will choose to instead squabble amongst themselves over the limited resource of the planet Earth.

The first world is steadly working towards the goal of colonising space, begining with the plan to capture an asteroid and place it in low orbit around the moon, developing a moon base using currently available 3D printing technology and new steel production industrial processess recently developed. Combined these two programs will provide the basis for resource extraction and building processes which are the foundation of colonisation.

Once up and running there will be no need to attempt to bring resources into orbit from Earth which currently is prohibitively expensive (without economies of scale provided by a future commerical space tourism industry and/or a space elevator system) and all the resources can be obtained 'in situ'.

As for increasing capital flows to the third world, firstly you must have in place the appropriate poltical and judicial systems (and culture) to ensure the money is well used and not squandered.

dh:

30 Aug 2013 12:38:28pm

Anti gravity is science fiction and a space elevator is a long way off, if indeed it is possible at all.We're not going anwhere.And this is the point, we have to sort through the existential crisis of trying to have infinite growth in a finite system and the movie, the article and the debate in general is just that, a sorting through of the crisis that is a growing population on a planet that isn't growing.

whogoesthere:

30 Aug 2013 2:02:57pm

Imagine if all the money speny on wars and armies and weapons were spent on getting us into space. I expect we could do it. I used to hope that we would colonise the solar system, and maybe one day the stars (yes I grew up on Star Trek).

But we're nowhere near mature enough yet. I think we'd just transport our wars off-planet, and if we did reach other Earth-like planets just screw them up like we're doing to this one. I guess we could just trash one planet then move off to the next.

Might be best for now if we stay here, we'll either grow up or regress, as populations keep rising, and natural resources are further depleted (the Easter Island effect). I hope we grow up, but wouldn't put a bet on it.

Jimmy Necktie:

30 Aug 2013 6:27:28pm

I think, should all that money become available, we should solve our energy needs once and for all. Whether space-based or something not thought of yet, once we have unlimited energy most of our other domestic problems go away - population, food and water, polution etc. And space exploration becomes even easier.

If it weren't for the constant bickering inherent to our species, we'd have been there thousands of years ago.

Concerning Asylum Seekers:

30 Aug 2013 10:30:40am

So why didn't they get together and eventually build their own space station? Well, look around the earth now. A christian America that controls it's borders are sending space cars to Mars, whereas many middle eastern populations are shooting each others' whole families over such things as how you're supposed to dress. Who can send space cars to Mars if you're continually busy with religious neighborhood terrorism issues. I wonder that we would even have penicillin. No one wins if your soft heartedness is actually soft-headedness. A sequel would be good to see how the free and open spacestation ends up in years to come.

dh:

30 Aug 2013 11:37:46am

This a very good article. Thankyou for starting down the big picture stuff that has to be discussed, rather than the short term approach of who can be the most inhuman."democracies to think well beyond one's own borders"Consider, democracies do not wage war on other democracies. Surely there is an exception and I have not found it yet, but regardless, it would be an exception.Along with the other dozen or so nations with a refugee intake, we declare a small portion of our own country to be a Special Administrative Region - Australia. That is we commit to a global state construct. Coupled with an SAR-Canada and an SAR-US etc, this global state would allowed anyone to seek sanctuary. The purpose is safety, then health, then education housing and training, building a state from scratch and using the labour of it's inhabitants to do so. Does it sounds a bit whacky? well we already have this principle in operation where some Australia has land deemed to be commonwealth. Or consider the EU parliament buildings in Brussels, or even the UN building in New York... same basic principle already in operation.Then consider that currently around 7% of the population of Afghanistan has left the country seeking asylum. Ok, so if the nation state Afghanistan is at the heart of irregular migration then these dozen or so countries should annex a small portion of Afghanistan and set up a similar Special Administrative Region for people fleeing the countries anarchy, despotism, fundamentalism, greed, corruption ...whatever. A green zone that is protected by the contributing nation states initially. The rest of the country can go to the crapper, but this little portion (< 0.1% perhaps) is protected, it greatly reduces the cost of waging a war in a whole country, and it also says "fine, do what you want in your country, but if your citizens are going to cross continents and oceans to escape you, then we'll just make it easier for them to do so". Then we get about doing the education thing that is the low-hanging fruit of advancing civilisation.That would be thinking outside the box, but imagine now what would be a possible response to Syria, and I guarantee you they won't be the last.

old67:

maxx:

30 Aug 2013 11:52:54am

Can anyone answer this: If I were a genuine refugee running from genuine danger, why wouldn't I be happy to be settled anywhere where the danger doesn't exist? Is there such danger in PNG, or just no free ride?

yarpos:

The focus on boat people puzzles me. Its as if by controlling them we are somehow stopping all legitimate asylum seekers or being mean spirited about refugee type immigration.

What about those who exited their country to the nearest safe haven and went into the legitimate process for entry? They never seem to get a mention. Yet I am supposed to wring my hands for people who step over many otherwise safe countries and do thousands of kilometers of unsafe travel to get what they see as a soft touch entry to a rich country. Sorry , I feel sorry for the innocents they drag with them, but am much more sorry for the people with proven genuine claims stuck in refugee camps while massive resource get wasted on the others.

Coogera:

30 Aug 2013 4:09:27pm

maxx:

There are 43 million refugees fleeing from danger caused by war, famine of economic hardship. it really doesn't matter whether they are refugees as defined under the International Refugee Convention. The bottom line is we can't possibly bring them all to Australia. Our best hope is a cost effective approach to assist as many of those 43 million as possible. The huge costs of processing informal arrivals erodes our ability to do this.

winston smith:

The author makes reference to "A Brave New World". Parallels can also be drawn to the direction in which the modern world has gone in 1984.

Refugee mass migration is not new and it will only continue to become more of a problem the more the world goes down the path of global warming.

War is about resource security. War in the future is still going to be about resource security. But its not going to be oil, it will be fresh water and habitable land.

The single greatest contributors to greenhouse gases is energy production, ie. coal fired power stations, and transport, ie trucks/trains/planes.If these were to stop today, it would take 50 years before any difference in the volume of these gases in the atmosphere was seen. Global warming and the inevitable consequences is coming. It doesn't matter what caused it, what are we doing to mitigate the consequences?

Refugees don't want to leave their homeland. But they don't see any future for their families staying where they are.

Issues in these homelands need addressing, however distasteful. That doesn't necessarily require a use of force. It requires education and training to bring these nations to the standard that the west enjoys.

Instead of investing in military solutions to install puppet governments to suit the need of the west for cheap oil, that twenty years later are going to need to be removed because they no longer do as they are told, the ecologically sustainable technologies the west has developed need to be rolled out on a mass scale to developing nations to prevent them from making the same unsustainable mistakes of the west.

el-viejo:

"So what might an ethical and sustainable balance look like? Increasing our humanitarian refugee intake to 20,000 per year hasn't disrupted the social fabric so far. How about 50,000?"

How about 100,000? 500,000? A million, if you please? And so on, until the aforementioned social fabric gives way with a loud ripping sound. Then what? Unelected advocates will go to work on the ashes of the old to fashion the Glorious New?

This is our contry, not a yarn at a cafe, a video game or a night at the movies. The global demand for living somewhere nicer, fairer, wealthier and happier, preferably at someone else's expense, is effectively unlimited. 80% of the world's population live in the Third World. There are 42 million refugees and displaced people on the UN books. 800,000 are deemed by the UNHCR to be in need of resettlement. Most of them will never be resettled anywhere. The advocates may think it is pretty good fun to rub the noses of the majority in the open borders fantasy. I do not think the majority finds it funny, and the proof of that is less than two weeks away.

Without an orderly migration program, we are economically screwed. Orderly means planned, managed, and unashamedly grounded in unsentimental national interest. How long do you think can the broad public support for our migration program be sustained in the face of mass arrivals of self-selected settlers demanding instant permanent residence and requiring expensive long term support? Not very long I wager.

Victor :

30 Aug 2013 12:34:53pm

The hankering to colonise space, or to house people on satellites is based on the premise that the world's population will continue to grow and reach an unsustainable number

I don't think that will happen. The planet could probably support about another 7 billion......yes, about double the current population if we didn't waste half the world's food output, and utilised potential arable land more efficiently. However the population will probably level out at about 10 million and there are signs of this trend....Japan's population hasn't grown in about 2 decades, and neither has Taiwan's. There has been a strong message from China's one child policy that has been sent to the rest of Asia, and people see the benefits of having fewer children where they once saw the benefits of having many.

I saw an op ed article a while back that suggested we will all need to migrate to the poles in about 500 years because the world will be too hot, and in the process the population would drop to about 500 million.

Perhaps that is the way to go....stop wringing our hands and just let nature take it's course.

sdrawkcaB:

30 Aug 2013 2:00:34pm

If it is your opinion that the planet could probably support another 7 billion then you have elected to ignore the body of the estimates that average at 4 billion.

There are perfectly sound estimates that come at 2 billion. There are 14 billion estimates and above but they, however, have a basis in technology optimism which by its nature is not technology realism.

There is more to it then food and a blind faith that technology will solve it. We will find that out soon enough when oil extraction peaks again.

dh:

30 Aug 2013 3:28:02pm

Firstly, any trend towards a slowing population growth rate is linked to education..... so.... what should we be doing then?Secondly, if people don't see the boundary of our finite planet then they won't do anything about it. I contend that some people may not see the planet as finite.Thirdly, biological systems, as in "let nature takes it's course" often leads to a population explosion followed by extinction... so like the good little biologist that I am, you don't mind if I keep wringing my hands on this one do you?

Victor :

30 Aug 2013 5:33:58pm

dh,

While you are wringing your hands there are people taking advantage of you and laughing all the way to the bank. Have you noticed that almost every environmental initiative in the last 3 decades has come with a cost....to John Citizen.....and who benefits? Usually someone who is very rich or a government. People think that another tax and another bureaucracy to administer it are good for our planet.

In the past nature has taken it's course....wars, famine, disease have kept population to a level where it hasn't caused concern. The 18th and 19th centuries alone have seen over 100 million Chinese die from civil strife....if that number is extrapolated to the preasent day it could mean another half billion or so on our planet.

Obvoiusly there is no real will to do anything that will solve the problem and it will probably come back to natural attrition....mother nature was culling humans long before people like Himmler and Hitler plaigiarised the idea.

But then we could wring our hands, or impose a carbon tax, or perhaps you could think of a new idea.

R. Ambrose Raven:

30 Aug 2013 1:25:11pm

Brutalising refugees is obviously expensive, superannuation tax concessions for wealthy working rent-seekers cost $30 billion in FY12, and the traitorous betrayal in selling the Eastern States out to Big Energy means large universal increases in both domestic and business costs.

There appears to be quite a lot that could be done to develop small-scale industries both within the concentration camps (thus making them forced labour camps) and for the locals (who themselves have low incomes but face increasing resource stresses). Since the Robben (sorry, Manus) Island refugees won't be coming to Australia, we can be less afraid of training and educating and employing them in some cottage industry. A President of Nauru at the time of the Pacific Solution said, 'We would welcome them if they could assist in our development here."

Granted, many haters will want brutality on principle, regardless of the cost of detention (except as a useful excuse for complaint). Good, progressive policy being adopted anywhere risks the adoption of such policies in Australia.

After requesting that readers be seated before reading further, I'll point out that good policy actually works, while bad policy doesn't, meaning that we are actually better off for good policy ? and we are also really actually worse off for bad policy, even if the filthy rich successfully offload most of the cost onto the non-rich. A great problem is that the mainstream media treats the difference as an entertainment, and many people are stupid enough to be taken in.

Indeed, I'd argue that for us our greatest problem is that we have policies designed to appeal to the haters, the rent-seekers, and transnational capitalists, rather than simply seeking to arrange a comfortable standard of living for ordinary people.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2013 2:20:16pm

Good policy generally does work. Have you got any good policies to suggest? And please don't suggest that we give asylum seekers in PNG access to a level of education and support that is greater than that available to the nationals of PNG. That is one of the first issues the UNHCR has to contend with when establishing refugee camps: those camps cannot provide a better standard of living that that of the local population, or the locals simply will not accept its presence.

Pell:

Just seen Elysium, it goes full tilt without a rest. When Matt Damon puts on that exoskeleton I flinched, heaps of what must be dead cows being blown up for authenticity in the fights.

There was the parallels with the divisions between the have and have nots, but it was on a much bigger scale. There was though, that same bad feeling in the gut, that I have with the asylum seeker issue, that the way it is being gone about is just wrong. Hard to solve, but still wrong.

Steve_C:

30 Aug 2013 5:16:23pm

Hard to solve?

Only as hard as one's commitment to solving it!!

Getting to the moon AND back was a more difficult problem to solve, but there was the commitment by all in the U.S. at the time, their resolve to continue despite the setbacks and a common sense of vision that understood the attainment of the goal was worth the cost to achieve it.

Now we just have a bunch of lily livered blanc manges who fold like a house of limp cards at the first probability of some pseudo perceived 'difficulty'. Either that or they expect "the Government" to come up with some way of fixing things for them!!

For centuries the Gordian knot exemplified the sort of 'unsolvable conundrum' you intimate the asylum seeker issue represents... It took an intellect that looked beyond the mundane and myopic tunnel most humans see their lives and that of others through, to cut through the bollocks that - like plaque on good tooth enamel, is allowed to build up by those who find putting tooth paste on a tooth brush and applying some elbow grease when brushing, "way too difficult"...

R. Ambrose Raven:

30 Aug 2013 1:29:07pm

Yes, but. Yes, there are parallels, but unintentional.

Elysium is very clearly a savage criticism of the Imperial American police state, not merely in its extreme control measures (note the - correct - portrayal of - today's - Homeland Security as evil and oppressive), but also in its lack of provision of basic services to its citizens (no doubt modelled in part on the appalling shortcomings of the Obamacare forced-consumption-of-private-product), it is dramatised by using a single mother + single child with terminal disease.

Yes, it is a warning, NOT JUST ABOUT REFUGEES!

Our own seven conurbations, Aboriginal Australia, and the citizens of the littoral states generally, are all likely to suffer explosive consequences as our own ruling class works to protect the loot their class made from thirty years of plunder on a scale that exceeded the Spanish conquest of the Americas. Moneybags, rent-seekers and profit-seekers are combining powerful but subtle media campaigns (exemplified by the easy and enthusiastic incitement of and by the haters) with pressure on the governments that they own to manufacture consent to ensure that the cost and risk can continue to be offloaded onto the 99% - offloading taxation from the rich to the struggling, for instance.

Haters' hypocrisies are gross and patent. They can and will do nothing but damage and evil - as is their desire, of course.

Greatly slowing the enormous temporary worker intakes currently demanded by the sweatshoppers is an obvious and easy action (notwithstanding the furious opposition to Gillard Labor's April tightening of exploitation of the s457 visas). Foreign workers are now often out-competing against young Australians for first-time jobs - such as stacking supermarket shelves, retail sales or cleaning - in the big cities. A Monash University study found that 58,000 new jobs were created in the year to August '12, but 100,000 immigrants arrived and found work during the same period.

Simply returning to the egalitarian social and economic policies would do a great deal of good. Our society has plenty of money. Our problem is that the rich want to keep it so they can waste it.

Hertz Van Rental:

30 Aug 2013 1:40:20pm

It's either let anyone in who can come up with a sad story or let no-one in. The entire populations of Somalia, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Syria would move here in a second if they could. That's 800 million people. You really want that? Sorry but some things are just physically impossible.

orangefox:

30 Aug 2013 1:41:29pm

Before Australia addresses the refugee issue it needs to make it's position clear on globilisation, weapons trade, exploitation of cheap labour, etc which are causing much of the unrest in these countries.Above all the weapons sales need to be stopped.At least Australia is not part of the weapons trade and we should be holding other countries like China, USA, Russia, France, UK and others responsible for the world mess and the resulting refugees.We can not take a higher moral position while we remain silent on the above issues.In regards to the refugees coming to this country we have a right to be concerned with the criminal organisation that is running this business both from within Australia and overseas.I now don't think the offshore detention is a long term solution and it is too expensive.I think the simple solution is;Temporary Protection Visas for boat and plane arrivals found to be genuine refugees.Permanent Visas for genuine refugees that apply through the UNRC.Deportation for those that don't meet refugee status or are a security risk.

harry:

30 Aug 2013 2:20:33pm

The problem with this article is that there is a presumption that asylum seekers and people smugglers care about what number you set for you humanitarian intake. More than 35,000 have come in the last year, despite our "humanitarian intake" being set to 20,000. Raising the intake on the basis that they are going to arrive on leaky boats will just encourage more to make the trip, and further disadvantage those genuine refugees in camps around the world that don't have the money to pay people smugglers. My empathy lies with them.

The unfortunate reality is that the correct number for unregulated boat arrivals is one big fat ZERO. None should ever attain citizenship, and they should be repatriated as soon as possible (safety permitting).

The question of Australia's international responsibilities are a separate issue, we should have a healthy intake of refugees, taken from UNHCR camps or anywhere else AUSTRALIA deems is appropriate.

The entry of people into Australia is a matter for Australia, not people smugglers, and those people who arrive hear in unregulated boats should not take the place of any of the humanitarian allocation.

Richard Gillies:

30 Aug 2013 2:37:04pm

Pardon me, Andrew, but "militarising" our borders WILL stop the flow of boatpeople. It was called the Pacific Solution, and it worked extraordinarily well, until the Rudd Labor government dismantled it in 2008.

During the years of its operation (from 2001 to 2008), there were approximately 30 million people classed as refugees in the world. During this time Australia had an average of sixty people per YEAR arriving by boat (the highest number being 171 in 2008).

During the past five years, following the dismantling of the Pacific Solution, the number of people classified as refugees in the world has risen by 50% (to about 45 million). However, the number of boatpeople coming to Australia has increased not by just 50%, or anything close to it. The number of boatpeople has increased by 10,000% (171 in 2008, to 17202 in 2012).

It just goes to show that these boatpeople are really economic migrants who are telling fictional sad stories in order to be deemed "refugees". Not that the "pro-refugee" lobby will be concerned about that. It's all about APPEARING to do good with them.

Coogera:

30 Aug 2013 7:41:02pm

Richard Gillies;

Typical LNP rhetoric. The reality is what was the Pacific Solution has largely been implemented but has failed to stop the boats. Hence the ALP complex solution of Pacific Solution with teeth has now been put into action. The reality is that unless you have a legal means to kick out informal arrivals, all these silly solutions will not work.

Kumar:

30 Aug 2013 2:41:50pm

**Because militarising our borders will not stop the flow of people, as America has noted. **

It will never stop the flow but it can certainly reduce the flow. Make a law that says that anyone without documents can come to Australia and start work and then check to see if the flow goes up or down as a result! Australia made me jump through a lot of hoops to prove my job experience, age and credentials or order for me to be given residency.

Ask yourself, does the militarised border between Israel and the Palestinian territories reduce the flow of people? Did the militarised border between the Warsaw Pact countries and Nato Countries during the cold war reduce the flow there at that time? Does the militarised border between North and South Korea reduce the flow there?

Kumar:

There have been large capital flows from developed countries to developing ones. This is the way capital puts downward pressure on wages and conditions in the developed world. It argues for lower tariff barriers, it argues for no restriction on capital flows and then sets up factories in low wage countries that export to developed countries. Companies start closing their plants in developed countries and moving them to low wage countries. They then say to the unions in developed countries that they must accept cuts in wages and conditions in order to keep jobs at home.

Kumar:

30 Aug 2013 2:59:47pm

**But finding an alternative will require nation states and their democracies to think well beyond one's own borders and recognise that national security is also related to global security; to a shared security.**

We can't force stability on other societies. We can't reduce hyper conservative religious views elsewhere. We can't force people elsewhere to have less kids. We can't force people to give up narrow religious, and ethnic identities. We can make some small differences with targeted programs but I don't think that in a 7 billion person world we are going to make a big difference. Big differences can only come from the people within developing countries. I am speaking as someone who is constantly frustrated by the lack of attention to basic infrastructure and problems of corruption in my homeland.

Geoff:

The ideals of free travel across borders are all well and good but they do not live up to reality. The problems are primarily related to resourse scarcity and cultural incompatability.

A sovereign nation has no control over what happens outside it's own borders, unless it seeks to impose it's own interests on other sovereign nations. Because of this, nobody can control the constant generation of new people who want to consume resources and who given the chance would like to live in the most prosperous place they can physically reach.

This rule has no regard for noble ideals, until all jurisdictions are populated by people with a universal culture of self restraint, respect for sustainability and an indipendant spirit there will always be a supply of people who do not. The effect of this is that totally open borders leads to an averaging down of living standards in previously sustainably populated areas. Note however that nobody has completley open borders for this very reason.

Everywhere, there is a policy somewhere between the two extremes, according to the capacity of the area to accept more people sustainably (in absolute and growth rate terms). There can be good reasons for accepting people too. It encourages the spread of new ideas, tolerance for difference, and for humanitrian reasons. There is a balance to be made between the pros and cons of open borders.

All we should really be arguing about is how many people our economy can sustainably take and how compasionate we should be on humanitarian grounds. We should all acknowledge that there is a practical balance, and no room for idealisim.

zac48:

30 Aug 2013 3:22:39pm

Australia has seen nothing yet....Within another 10/20/40 years not only the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of people who today would come to Australia if they only could get here, there will be direct national and governmental threats to Australia representing these uncountable multitudes. Within another couple of generations it is "inevitable" that Australia will have to defend itself against direct threat, if not actual military invasion by world powers with ever exploding populations, like India or China for example, even Indonesia. Australia is seen by these people as 'Terra Nulius", an empty land, full of natural resourses and arible land to feed their teeming populations. Australia's one and only advantage is it's an island. Australia can expect accusation and abuse from 'everybody' including our American and European allies because we might resist being overwhelmed by these countless multitudes, afterall if they can convince us to simply 'give up' and accept these 'billions' of people that means these huge populations won't end up on their continents and in their country's. The UN are trying to intimidate Australia into taking that course even today.

KK:

30 Aug 2013 4:42:17pm

'away from the dangers of a polluted and overpopulated Earth'. Or a violent and undemocratic country, just like where Nelson Mandela, Xanana Gusmao, Michael Collins and Mahatma Gandhi lived. Except that those men and their supporters stayed and fought and won and saw no need to pay anyone to help them abandon their country.

zac48:

30 Aug 2013 7:15:27pm

Nothing has improved for these people. There hasn't been any sort of sweeping social change. No development of economies, and no measurable change in the prospects of individual citizens. The only 'real' change is they feel better about themselves.

Celarent:

30 Aug 2013 5:01:16pm

The notion that we would have to deal with an unlimited number of refugees at any given time is utterly preposterous. Even refugees from third world countries are a finite resource in numbers when you stop being hysterical and look at the realities. Most of the worlds refugees are nowhere near Australia and have no real desire to come here. There may be several hundred thousand refugees in the neighbourhood waiting to come here, we could easily accomodate them all in a few years time and they would happily wait a reasonable time for processing if there was a legitimate assurance that they would be processed fairly and, if found to be refugees, they would be allowed to settle. Australia has an ageing population and the birth rate is quite low, we actually need people to boost our working population and take low skilled jobs that other Australians won't take. The money we are spending on overseas detention could be being used in schools and hospitals. Really if people would just take a step back and really just how insanely dumb the current policies are I believe that the more humane solution is actually a win/win for everyone.

KK:

Tell me:

30 Aug 2013 5:57:59pm

It does not matter exactly what number we decide we shall take from those who arrive by boat so long as our society can sustain this number in conjunction with the number we take from offshore - whatever the ratios of these numbers might be. The real question is this: - what do we do with the excess that arrives ? Think about this problem. Do you simply increase the number allowable of the annual intake to match the numbers arriving by boat? This seems to be the position taken to date. And what about the cases offshore ? Are they just going to loose out to those who had the money to get on a boat ? It surprises me that some folk simply believe we can take an unlimited amount of refugees and life for all of us will simply go on as before. This is a good example of very lazy thinking.

Pun:

30 Aug 2013 7:19:55pm

Saw the movie. Liked it.

The parrallels with asylum seekers was obvious. But the world of the movie seemed to be borderless already, national accents from present-day countries in the speech of characters living in the same space.

The outsiders were not just yearning for the better world of the insiders, with better health care and gated community. They seem to be yearning for the slave-robots who administer the medical care, serve the drinks. When citizenship is universalised and all are equal, the means of distribution of social goods and services is automation, non-humans.

Which in the end doesn't really help us humans solve the problem of how to make peace with each other, to negotiate, be more just to each other in the distribution of wealth and power.